Constrained School Choice



Proof By Theorem 1 of Kesten (2006), τ = γ. Hence, Oτ (P, k) = Oγ(P, k). By
Lemma 1 of Kesten (2006), f is Ergin-acyclic. So, from Theorem 6.5, S(P) =
Oγ (P, k) =
Oτ (P,k).                                                                           ■

Proof of Theorem 6.8 Follows from Lemmas B.10 and B.11.

Lemma B.12 Let the priority structure f admit an X-cycle. Let 1 k m. Then,
there is a school choice problem
P with a Pareto inefficient equilibrium outcome in the
game
Γτ(P, k), i.e., for some Q Eτ(P, k), τ(Q) PE(P).

Proof Since f admits an X -cycle, we may assume, without loss of generality, that
(a) f
s1(ij) < fs1(i1) < fs1(i2) for each j I1 := {3, . . . , qs1 + 1} and

(b) fs2(ij) < fs2(i2) < fs2(i1) for each j I2 := {qs1 + 2, . . . ,qs1 + qs2}.

Consider students’ preferences P defined by Pi1 := s2, s1, Pi2 := s1, s2, Pij := s1 for
j I1, Pij := S2 for j I2, and Pij := 0 for all j 1 + qs2 + 1,. .., n}.

Consider Q Q(k)I defined by Qi1 := s1, Qi2 := s2, and Qi := Pi for all i I \{i1 , i2}.
One easily verifies that at τ(Q) all students in
{i3, i4, . . . , iqs1 +qs2 } are assigned to their
favorite school. Also, τ(Q)(i
1) = s1 and τ (Q)(i2) = s2. It is obvious that at τ(Q)
students i
1 and i2 would like to swap their seats, i.e., τ (Q) PE(P). Nevertheless, there
is no unilateral deviation for either of the two students to obtain the other seat. Hence,
Q
Eτ(P,k).                                                              ■

Proposition B.13 Let 1 k m. If for some school choice problem P there exists
Q Eτ (P, k) such that τ (Q) / PE(P) then f admits an X -cycle.

Proof Let Q Eτ(P, k) be such that τ(Q) / PE(P). In view of Proposition B.9 we may
assume without loss of generality that k = 1 and for each student i
I, Qi = τ (Q)(i).
For any school s
S and any profile Q QI, let As(Q) be the set of students to which
school s points whenever school s is part of a cycle,
i.e.,

As(Q) := {i I : there is a step l of TTC(Q) with i = e(Q, l, s) and s F(Q, l, i)} .

Step 1 There exist p 2, a set of students CI = {i1 , . . . , ip}, and a set of schools
CS = {s1, . . . , sp} such that

(a) for each student ir CI, srPir sr+1 = τ (Q)(ir) (where ip+1 = i0),

(b) for each school s CS, As(Q) = τ(Q)(s) = qs, and

(c) for any two distinct schools s, s' Cs, As(Q) As'(Q) = 0.

40



More intriguing information

1. Assessing Economic Complexity with Input-Output Based Measures
2. The Functions of Postpartum Depression
3. Strategic Planning on the Local Level As a Factor of Rural Development in the Republic of Serbia
4. Unemployment in an Interdependent World
5. The name is absent
6. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California
7. Inhimillinen pääoma ja palkat Suomessa: Paluu perusmalliin
8. A Principal Components Approach to Cross-Section Dependence in Panels
9. The name is absent
10. Response speeds of direct and securitized real estate to shocks in the fundamentals
11. Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations
12. Thresholds for Employment and Unemployment - a Spatial Analysis of German Regional Labour Markets 1992-2000
13. THE RISE OF RURAL-TO-RURAL LABOR MARKETS IN CHINA
14. 101 Proposals to reform the Stability and Growth Pact. Why so many? A Survey
15. The name is absent
16. An Efficient Secure Multimodal Biometric Fusion Using Palmprint and Face Image
17. Philosophical Perspectives on Trustworthiness and Open-mindedness as Professional Virtues for the Practice of Nursing: Implications for he Moral Education of Nurses
18. The name is absent
19. A Rational Analysis of Alternating Search and Reflection Strategies in Problem Solving
20. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance